Amazing 1983 Prophecy: Donald Trump will lead America back to God

[End]

This reminds me when I was a part of an online doomsday cult in my youth. I eventually said to myself "fuck this shit" and grew a brain via my Leftist Liberal Arts education. Sometime after Trump won in 2016, I went back to that doomer site and they were hailing Trump as some servant of God. It was a relief to me because it was the confirmation I needed that those people were completely full of shit with zero moral authority.

While I do rightfully disdain the types you seem to, you seem to forget a key point I frequently make. See, these "cults" ultimately rely upon Christian morality. Atheists, agnostics, the SJW's, even the outright Satanists, ultimately acknowledge the truth of Christian Morality. If not in affirmation, than in denial. When non-Christians try to make a "moral" argument, they ultimately affirm Christian morality.

The Truth is the Truth no matter how much people may wish to deny it. 2+2=4, A is A, I can go on forever illustrating this most fundamental of points...

[xerx]

You make a few good points I'll admit. I especially agree with your point that, at the current time, there is both a lack of struggle and function and that we're all currently living a "domestic" existence if we're living in a First World country. Thing is, this is why I've pointed out that there's obviously a cycle playing out here.

The r-selected eat up all the "seed corn" at the moment of their ascendancy and have no idea how to even garden let alone farm (eg. look up how the people in the CHAZ tried to set up a garden). The K-selected are different, know full well how to garden and farm but, so focused they are in regards to what is "practical" they forget how the r-selected rabbits function. Thus, they "win" the battle (eg. make the Soviet Union collapse), yet lose the war (i.e. who actually controls the vital cultural, political, and governmental institutions after that "victory" within your own nations)?

Thing is, both sides, r/liberals and K/conservatives have vital parts of the puzzle, yet both give in to the impulse towards hubris at the moment right before they may have managed to achieve final victory over their stated enemy. And thus, the cycle continues. Thing is, now both sides are aware that there's a cycle playing out. Or at least, my side is. I doubt the other side is incompetent to that extent so this election really is for all the marbles.

Thankfully, Sin dims the intellect as it is an affront to Truth. Thus, it's Trump, a man you can hurl insults at all day but who is obviously competent and salient in his thoughts, versus Biden, an obviously dementia ridden old fool who ought to be in a nursing home, not the leader of the "free world" as it were. This election will be decided shortly after the first debate begins for anyone with an IQ north of 90. Do we really want a senile old man who can't remember what state he's in having the ability to "push the button" that begins a Nuclear World War?

I can't comment on the application of 'r/K selection' to political affiliation. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, so I'll leave it at that.


On a completely unrelated note:

You've probably heard about China's 'Social Credit System', which scores people according to their degree of good Samaritanism and loyalty to the government—incidentally, this is supported by most Chinese. In America, there are now corporations using data analytics to rate people based on social media posts. Insurance companies are already using it to determine premiums; Airbnb is using it to deny service. Link

The most ominous thing is the opaqueness of these algorithms and the objectives that guide them. The law—which is the other Skinner box—is at least transparent and subject to appeal; corporate bureaucracies often are not.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I can't comment on the application of 'r/K selection' to political affiliation. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, so I'll leave it at that.

I will: End's a moron.

You make a few good points I'll admit. I especially agree with your point that, at the current time, there is both a lack of struggle and function and that we're all currently living a "domestic" existence if we're living in a First World country. Thing is, this is why I've pointed out that there's obviously a cycle playing out here.

There's no "obviously" here.

The r-selected eat up all the "seed corn" at the moment of their ascendancy and have no idea how to even garden let alone farm (eg. look up how the people in the CHAZ tried to set up a garden). The K-selected are different, know full well how to garden and farm but, so focused they are in regards to what is "practical" they forget how the r-selected rabbits function. Thus, they "win" the battle (eg. make the Soviet Union collapse), yet lose the war (i.e. who actually controls the vital cultural, political, and governmental institutions after that "victory" within your own nations)?

Thing is, both sides, r/liberals and K/conservatives have vital parts of the puzzle, yet both give in to the impulse towards hubris at the moment right before they may have managed to achieve final victory over their stated enemy. And thus, the cycle continues. Thing is, now both sides are aware that there's a cycle playing out. Or at least, my side is. I doubt the other side is incompetent to that extent so this election really is for all the marbles.

How the fuck do you determine who's r and k selected?! What, do you not only think r and k selection are reflected in 21st century American political categories, but you think the k selectors are the side less likely to use birth control and statistically have lower IQs? And who do you think made the USSR collapse, anyway? Or do you think the neocons who were saber-rattling with the USSR were particularly concerned that the American government was controlled by the bourgeoisie?

Thankfully, Sin dims the intellect as it is an affront to Truth. Thus, it's Trump, a man you can hurl insults at all day but who is obviously competent and salient in his thoughts, versus Biden, an obviously dementia ridden old fool who ought to be in a nursing home, not the leader of the "free world" as it were. This election will be decided shortly after the first debate begins for anyone with an IQ north of 90. Do we really want a senile old man who can't remember what state he's in having the ability to "push the button" that begins a Nuclear World War?

Sin evidently doesn't dim the intellect as much as religion if "Democrats are r selectors" factors into your explanation of why Biden is the nominee.

[Samson]

He hasn't fixed anything yet. Hard to believe he's going to fix anything in the future.

Do you believe that you expressed a well-informed opinion?

[End]

You've probably heard about China's 'Social Credit System', which scores people according to their degree of good Samaritanism and loyalty to the government—incidentally, this is supported by most Chinese. In America, there are now corporations using data analytics to rate people based on social media posts. Insurance companies are already using it to determine premiums; Airbnb is using it to deny service. Link

The most ominous thing is the opaqueness of these algorithms and the objectives that guide them. The law—which is the other Skinner box—is at least transparent and subject to appeal; corporate bureaucracies often are not.

Of course most Chinese support it. To not do so is be a "bad citizen" after all and that's a big hit to one's social credit score. This is all part of the dream of the PTB. Social Credit and the Cashless Society. The two together create an almost maintenance free network of absolute control of the "peasantry" as it were. Why "cancel" someone officially when you can incentivize their own friends and family to do it themselves? Why send goons to assassinate a dissident when you can just "turn off" their credit/debit cards and let them starve for lack of ability to purchase food or pay bills? It "sanitizes" the whole nasty business of maintaining a totalitarian Orwellian state. Who needs boots stomping on faces when you can just issue a few "hints" on social media and let everyone's desire to remain employed and alive via having an "adequate" social credit score do the rest?

How the fuck do you determine who's r and k selected?!

There's resources about it and I've spoken about it elsewhere on this site in fact. To launch into a lecture here would be to go way off topic. The analogy I and others use is rabbits vs. wolves. Bonobos vs. Chimpanzees is another popular comparison. That should start you off right .

[Tzuyu]

@End, no disrespect but your logic seem more Ti PoLR then Ti Demonstrative. You’ve seem to come to a conclusion first and purposely seek out disparate “facts” to justify them.

Even the r/K Wikipedia article states that it’s held no real validity in biological discourse since the 80’s. It lacks nuance and seems to be used to justify the belief in a “higher quality” and “lower quality but more quantitative” classes of humans that’s been genetically coded into human society.

http://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.co...bogus.html?m=1

Some people think that r/K selection theory explains the differences between human races, or even between the left and right in politics. This is bogus because r/K selection theory is bogus. There is a difference between civilization-adapted people, such as East Asians and Europeans, and non-civilization-adapted people, such as sub-Saharan Africans and the Inuit. Civilization adapted people have lower rates of violent crime, higher IQs and higher incomes. That is because they were selected for certain psychological traits by the environment that they created. Biology and culture coevolve and eventually fit together, in what I call "adaptive coherence". People of different races are not only adapted to different physical environments (such as more or less sunshine) but also to different cultural and social environments. We shape the environment, and it shapes us. Europeans and East Asians are not K-selected, they are "C-selected" (civilization selected).

I highly recommend this course on critical thinking skills, which can be difficult in the information age
https://www.coursera.org/lecture/min...oduction-hu7Ch

[Nobody]

If the Chinese system of government has taught me anything it's that paying people very little to mass produce your goods meaning crushing the world economy at the expense of your people. But as long as you crush your people's ability to revolt, Chinese communism wins! Go Team Red! Crushing everything!

[Nobody]

Oh and I think there was a Black Mirror episode about the social credit system - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R32qWdOWrTo

If society ever comes to this I'm either turning into a serial killer or I'm killing myself or both. And if any law enforcement or government agency or algorithm is reading this and taking note, consider this a joke.

[marooned]

@End, no disrespect but your logic seem more Ti PoLR then Ti Demonstrative. You’ve seem to come to a conclusion first and purposely seek out disparate “facts” to justify them.

why not HA? (i'm being nosey)

[aixelsyd]

While I do rightfully disdain the types you seem to, you seem to forget a key point I frequently make. See, these "cults" ultimately rely upon Christian morality. Atheists, agnostics, the SJW's, even the outright Satanists, ultimately acknowledge the truth of Christian Morality. If not in affirmation, than in denial. When non-Christians try to make a "moral" argument, they ultimately affirm Christian morality.

The Truth is the Truth no matter how much people may wish to deny it. 2+2=4, A is A, I can go on forever illustrating this most fundamental of points...

I admit I didn't read through the read and was mostly thinking towards the OPs post.

Nonetheless, what defines "Christian morality?" How is this morality different from Buddhist morality, Jewish morality, Native American morality? Christianity does not have the monopoly on the Golden Rule which can be seen in religions across cultures. God is not confined to a religious label.

If anything, right and wrong do exist because of the inherent duality of the universe. In Taoism, dark cannot exist without light and vice-versa. In the same sense, good cannot exist without evil.

I see "The Truth" touted by more fundamentalist factions, but I have yet to see consistency in how this truth is defined.

Morality is morality. However, I do not have a completely rigid view as I once did. Morality should be supported by reason and common sense. Otherwise, it becomes legalism. But believe it or not, morality existed before Christianity and before Judaism and nations that are not primarily Christian still have their own morality that is supported by their own religious beliefs: many which predate Abrahamic faith. More likely, our sense of morality developed via evolution so that societies could be formed and function, but that is another discussion.

[marooned]

the basis of "morality" evolved i think way before humans ever did:



It only takes a bit more awareness to go from "that's not fair! (to me)" to "others would feel the same way as me." A little more empathy, logic, memory and awareness, and then you have, "It's not right to pay people unequally for the same work."

Basically as I see it the monkeys are actually almost all the way there.

Different social species also have behavioral etiquette, which is probably quite instinctive (but I would argue it's instinctive in humans as well). It's basically that social animals have to have some sort of behavioral norms that keep them working together for survival rather than a detriment to survival of the group. These building blocks of morality... are necessary.

[Adam Strange]

If the Chinese system of government has taught me anything it's that paying people very little to mass produce your goods meaning crushing the world economy at the expense of your people. But as long as you crush your people's ability to revolt, Chinese communism wins! Go Team Red! Crushing everything!

The Chinese system of government has taught you entirely the wrong thing, then.

The Chinese government doesn't give a rat's ass about the world economy or crushing it. It has over a billion people living on the edge of starvation and has been repeatedly humiliated by more modern, Western powers. It has tried several times in the past 200 years to modernize its economy and failed in all preceding attempts.

It is currently succeeding to some degree with modernizing its economy by using demand from foreign countries to drive the construction of its industries. It can't seem to generate any internal demand from its own citizens.

This means that it is responding to foreign demand for goods by producing those goods using labor that otherwise would be starving. It gets paid for those goods in little green pieces of paper that it can use to buy only a limited number of things that the West allows it to buy. Some food, some machinery, US Treasury bonds, and gold, mostly. The latter two items have almost no intrinsic value, so you could say that the Chinese are getting nothing for their labor but whatever information about mass production techniques they can pry from the West. But knowing how to produce something en mass is only useful if there is a market willing to buy what you are producing.

At the end of the day, they still are not generating an internal demand for goods or services. When the West stopped buying from them, their economy declined in lock step. This is not a successful form of capitalism.

China's government is mostly concerned with keeping everyone fed and suppressing internal revolts. Wrecking your uncle's engine rebuild business is not even on their radar. That is just collateral damage from US capitalists.

[Nobody]

@Adam Strange
Well, from what I've heard/understand, which may or may not be all that accurate and up to date, the Chinese have a global strategy to dominate manufacturing by killing off the manufacturing in other countries. First they undercut the competition to get the trade going by underpaying compared to foreign nations. This makes their goods very attractive and almost necessary because any business can't compete without being reasonably priced. Then we end up with a massive trade imbalance that should bring up the global value of the Chinese currency and bring down the value of the global economy over time and make their goods less attractive. So what they do to prevent this is print money to cause inflation and then buy foreign debt to funnel the extra cash and keep the imbalance going undisturbed. This over time kills manufacturing in foreign nations.

You did mention that when the West stopped buying, their economy declined as well. But that's also a pretty drastic change for any kind of manufacturing/economics. There's a time investment in redirecting economics and it's part of how their global strategy makes so much sense because any foreign power will be years, if not decades behind in manufacturing after being out of the game for so long, and China will have a kind of business leverage over everyone, as if they hold some kind of metaphorical oil. So maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but when you say their economy declined from lack of trade, why was that? Did they properly redirect that trade internally? Were there other problems that prevented that? If those questions can be answered, maybe I could understand what you're getting at.

[End]

@snek Very nice passive-aggressive insults fired my way. I don't mind though, confirmation of my theories always brings a smile to my face . You Asian? Shame-based moral systems (i.e. Eastern Cultures) are the undisputed masters of those. I'm of western/European descent so I'm a bit more direct.

First, you view Wikipedia as a legit source!? First thing all my college professors told me was if I source a Wikipedia article on my papers I'm gonna get an F. Now, since they tended to have other sources at the bottom that might be legit I could (and one time did) cite that and get away with it. Plus, you quoted a literal blogspot post as if it was a credentialed authority. You in college right now? I, sadly, bet you are. As my own contemporaries/classmates agree, we got out just in time. When we were in college, no matter the other variables, our professors and the overall administration saw it more important to "teach" rather than "Indoctrinate". They agree with me now that that order has been reversed.

Case in point. I was a classmate with many non-whites in my Foreign Relations classes (hell, most all my classes were quite "diverse" in all the ways that actually mattered back in my day). One had eyes for a white girl in it. He succeeded in gaining her affections, married her, and had kids with her. He's now rightfully personally insulted that, as she tries to earn a Ph. D in her major field she's being forced to take "diversity and inclusivity" courses. We both agree that this shit has exactly zero things to do with her earning her Ph.D. and yet her class won't stop hounding on her even though she's married to and had kids with a literal foreigner. One of the three things you never do to another man, never mess with his woman. If you're of the SJW persuasion, remember that. And also remember that Gammas have extremely long memories and are quite willing to play the long game. Life, after all, is a game. A game we're very, very intent on winning whilst also being paragons of morality if we can help it .

I admit I didn't read through the read and was mostly thinking towards the OPs post.

Nonetheless, what defines "Christian morality?" How is this morality different from Buddhist morality, Jewish morality, Native American morality? Christianity does not have the monopoly on the Golden Rule which can be seen in religions across cultures. God is not confined to a religious label.

They're based on Shame, not Guilt. Christian morality is based upon the guilt you ought to feel for offending God's infinite majesty by doing evil (i.e. attempting to subtract from the good he embodies). Even if nobody else ever sees or suspects you, God knows. He always knows. Thus, even if you are celebrated as a hero and held up as a saint by literally everyone you know within your own society, if you know you sinned against the one true God somehow, it will all be as ashes in your mouth. You don't really get that effect in as profound a way without Christianity. It was, if nothing else, a unique innovation in regards to morality I'd say. An innovation all other cultures ought to try and incorporate into their own if they seek to equal or surpass what Western Culture has managed to achieve .

[Tzuyu]

p-p-please spare me @End -kun, not everyone can take your massive K selected divine thundercock O//w//O im so sorry for bothering you with my genetic inferiority, probably wasn’t reading correctly with my chinky r selected eyes! you can indoctrinate me anytime daddy, in the meantime, gonna kill some leftoids and SJWs tehee

[End]

p-p-please spare me @End -kun, not everyone can take your massive K selected divine thundercock O//w//O im so sorry for bothering you with my genetic inferiority, probably wasn’t reading correctly with my chinky r selected eyes! you can indoctrinate me anytime daddy, in the meantime, gonna kill some leftoids and SJWs tehee

You're misunderstanding me, but you made me chuckle a bit so hey bonus.

In and of themselves, r and K selection are just adaptations to the environment that make the most sense from a biological/genetic standpoint. They aren't "right" or "wrong", they are simply "the winning play" in a given environment. Of course, you win right up until you don't after all. Hence why it's a cycle. Each strategy invariably creates the conditions that allow the other to attain ascendancy right before it'd become a set path for the species if we assume we're dealing with sentience. Humans are, essentially, the only animal currently in existence on this planet for whom the path hasn't already been set and decided upon long ago.

I mentioned Bonobos and Chimpanzees. Funny thing is, that's a perfect example of the "same" species having settled for different/opposite selection strategies. Both are "set" in their selection strategy, but a twist of fate allowed both to continue on and survive whereas for pretty much every other species the "loser" was completely culled and is now thus long forgotten. Though you may see a rare mutant appear to serve as an "If" scenario. Like, for example, what if squirrels went down the K-selected path? They'd be quite beefy, eat nuts by the ton, and kick the weak among them "THIS! IS! SPARTA!" style out of the tree for daring to try to raid their stash.

I actually saw one like that. Killed some other squirrel by doing just that in squirrel terms. Actually managed to scare off the dogs and cats in the area into giving it a fair berth. Sadly, he never seemed to attain a mate. Guess he was just too "Chad" for those weaklings to handle.